toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Quincy
New member
:wave: Hello John
I think some people interpret the levitical passages to be implying that the practice of a man pretending to be another man's wife and laying with that man. In the KJV, the situation is referred to as mankind and womankind. Depending on how you interpret that, it could mean something other than same literal sex. It was a common practice is temples back then. It was basically just dominating another. So they believe that they can declare their love and devotion in Holy matrimony and it is something completely different than that.
I agree with your premise here, though. I would go so far to say, "why would anyone want to get married :freak: ."
I think some people interpret the levitical passages to be implying that the practice of a man pretending to be another man's wife and laying with that man. In the KJV, the situation is referred to as mankind and womankind. Depending on how you interpret that, it could mean something other than same literal sex. It was a common practice is temples back then. It was basically just dominating another. So they believe that they can declare their love and devotion in Holy matrimony and it is something completely different than that.
I agree with your premise here, though. I would go so far to say, "why would anyone want to get married :freak: ."
Last edited:
No. Laws should protect everyone but them.
what if you did want to protect them
how would you do it?
Maybe I should first ask this. What do you see them needing protection from? From gay marriage?
Quincy
New member
Man, I took too long replying. This thread really took off, much to my shock and dismay. Who knew TOLers like to talk about this so much. Where have I been :freak: ? Anyways, luckily I found this :cheers:
Yes I do agree with you so far. So, Zippy, why do you believe it is harmful? Note that I am referring to two homosexuals loving each other and not a promiscuous sex act. I would say that any promiscuous sex act is dangerous, regardless of orientation.
Yes I do agree with you so far. So, Zippy, why do you believe it is harmful? Note that I am referring to two homosexuals loving each other and not a promiscuous sex act. I would say that any promiscuous sex act is dangerous, regardless of orientation.
I asked you how would you protect the child and its mother
if
you chose to protect them
Selaphiel
Well-known member
zippy said:
Once again, I don't think that is a valid comparison. Just because I eat animals which is part of a normal diet does not mean that I'm willing to torture them.
Animal rights do matter, we are animals as well.
Homosexual couples say they love each other. I have no more reason to doubt that than when a heterosexual couple say they love each other.
What experience do you have other than thought experience and conservative Catholic influences?
Of course there are people who support it. However, euthanasia does not follow from secularism. Euthanasia was, is and will be opposed from secular sources. Secularism is not the problem in the euthanasia debate, lack of information and poor understanding of the relevant ethical implications.
What statistical data have I rejected? You did not present any statistical data, you presented an assertion that all secular people think that the law is there merely for protection. That may very well be the case, but you have in no way demonstrated that and it is a bald assertion to make without any evidence.
And I do not think it is wrong to think that the law is for protection. You are confusing legality with morality, they are not always the same.
Last edited:
That will depend on what they need protection from.
that is a pathetic response
One Eyed Jack
New member
So do you not think any of the scriptures talking about homosexuality were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Do you not believe that God gave the Law to Moses? Or do you think modern man knows better than God? I just can't see where you're coming from. I mean, if you think it's all made up by a bunch of ancient goat-herders, fishermen, and tent-makers who didn't know what they were talking about, why even claim to follow any of it?
Selaphiel
Well-known member
So those are my options? Inerrant literal word of God or nonsense written by ancient goat-herders? I sense a false dilemma fallacy here. It was written by men, that does not mean that all of it is nonsense. Some of it is built on outdated knowledge and worldviews, that is simply a fact.
marriage
How would allowing homosexuals to marry each other put mothers and their children in danger?
One Eyed Jack
New member
Are you suggesting it's both? Or neither? I'm just trying to see where you're coming from. Do you prefer the Jefferson Bible?
Did God inspire any of it? What's right? What's wrong? How can you tell which is which?
why do they need protection?
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Reason and experience, as in using my mind to study it and other knowledge.
Example: Genesis 1 and 2 are myths, they do not convey any factual information about how the earth and the universe came to be.
The text attempts to describe it (although I would not say that the authors attempted to write science), but it is simply wrong. The universe is 13,7 billion years old, life probably originated through abiogenesis, life diversified through the process of evolution. No man was ever 900 years old, and there was no flood. No amount of blind faith changes those facts.
One Eyed Jack
New member
That's not really relevant to this discussion anyway. Do you believe that God gave the Law to Moses, or do you think Moses just made them up and said God gave them to him? Or is there something else that you think may have happened?
Why does who need protection? Are you referring to homosexuals now?
yes
- Status